Before I begin, please keep the talk somewhat civil. I expect things to be heated but keep it down.. OK?  Great...  now lets begin.

Here we have an issue that is quite contraversial. I believe most countries (though not the vast majority) have outlawed the death penelty or are in the process of doing so. However, in places like America it hangs on.

I am pro death penelty. This is why. I do not believe in it as a form of revenge. I believe in it as a penelty and as a useful method of garbage disposal. WHen a good man is walking to his car after working until 2AM, who is providing for his family who are on hard times, and is robbed and killed in cold blood, I believe the man who commited this terriblre act does not deserve to live. He, in my opinion, has degraded him self to garbage and what do we do with garbage? We get rid of it. Some people say we should rehabiliate these people. But consider this, this person has taken something that can not be replaced, a human life. Does he even deserve rehabiliation and thus a 2nd chance? I dont believe he does. That is my line of thought with regard to the death penelty.

IF somebody is mentally ill, then i would say they should be confined to a mental ward for the rest of their life. And of course there are unique circumsatnces to every case. I do not care how much it costs, we spend money with little regard as it is. PLus if we are worried about cost, 1 bullet is less than a penny.

There is also the issue of it being barbaric. I ask somebody to prove this. It is an opinion based on what barbarism is. But killing people for commiting grose offenses is something that has occured in every civilized society up until recently (though I assume there are a few exceptions). I can not buy into the notion that the death penelty is barbaric.

I don't. On pragmatic grounds, not moral ones.

You cannot be sure the guy you are killing is a murderer.

That the murderer may 'deserve' to die isn't the point.

Well I support taking someone life should punished heavyly.

I think life of innocent is more precious than life of a murderer.

I think that the death penalty should be reserved for only the most dangerous criminals such as serial killers, whose guilt has been proved beyond a shadow of a doubt. If premeditation is established and if the person is likely to do it again, then the death penalty may be an option.

To take the example that someone gave earlier, about someone getting killed in an armed robbery. How do you know what actually happened? Oftentimes the robber has no real intention of killing the person, but things sometimes get out of hand due to the person getting robbed attempting to fight back. I think that most murders are the result of someone losing control of their emotions for a few moments. Should they be killed for their momentary lapse in judgement?

What about a fight in a bar? Someone throws a blow in anger and someone else gets killed as a result. Should that person be put to death? Things are not always clear-cut.

We put down animals if they bite a child, I think we should put down humans if they actually kill someone.

I feel worse about a animal being put down then a human because humans can reason and they know the laws of the land. If they don't follow them and kill someone knowing full well that they would be put to death for the crime if caught, then they deserve it.

But I think Texas has problems when it comes to the death penalty. They seem to get crazy with it. Under George Bush alone when he was Governor of Texas I think it was said 22 men were excuted. And Texas does not seem to wait after the sentence, usually a person can make appeals for 20 years and usually in that time if they are innocent they are usually found, but I don't think they wait. Atleast thats what they are known for.

There is one thing I don't understand, how does it cost more money to excute someone rather then waiting 30-60 for the guy to die and rot in prison. I mean you have to feed everyone one and probably buy them clothing annually. Also you have to pay for more guards to watch everyone and they are going to want good money.

The legal system doesn't degrees of guilt. Eg: he definately did it, death, He most probably did it, life. He quite certainly did it, 15 year. there's a good chance he did it, 8 years.

Trouble with this only for people who are guilty beyond the shadow of a doubt, it means you effectively saying the other people aren't, so shouldn't be in prison at all.

We exterminate communities of animals when they become a nuisance. Perhaps we should gas the inhabitants a a dozen of so cities. like Saddam did with the Kurds.

I was talking about people who killed other, so are you saying all those Kurds were killing people?

 I'm for it purely for revenge, also I don't see why the taxpayer should have to pay a small fortune to keep the lunatics of society in prison for the next few decades when you just know plenty of people really know the punishment they should recieve.

 I might be appeased to an extent if sentences in this damn country were even close to being as harsh as they should, life is a word thrown around many courts in Britain, seldom does it result in the criminal going down for life or anything close.

 I want the death penalty brought back in my country, hang them, won't bother me in the slightest, they are vermin and deserve to be treated as such.

 I apologise for coming across abit extreme on this, but I feel passionately about people being punished for their crimes, I cant say putting a mass murderer or child killer in prison is justice, they should hang.

 I dont know whether or not it would deter somebody from commiting murder or raping a load of women, all that matters to me is they recieve the correct punishment for their crimes and for extreme crimes I support death.

In principle the death penalty appeals to me, and I used to be quite the supporter of it.  But I no longer am because its a power the state should NOT have.  It serves no actual function of benefice and is not actually less good revenge because this way the scumbags life is ended and not prolonged in the hell of prison for a long time. 

Moresoever it makes a nation look backwards, and thus my nation would not have it based on reputation.

No - there's a difference between guilty beyond reasonable doubt and guilty beyond any doubt.

I doubt (!) you can ever be sure beyond any doubt.

Me...

I'm PRO with death penalty.. as a reminder and as an example for those who might consider to do the same crime or whtever bad things which is deserved to get death penalty.. and to prevent permanently for the criminal to have opportunity to do it again...

The good news is that there is less recidivism with the death penalty. Still I am opposed to it.

As a private citizen, I may be compelled to kill, in self defense, in defense of my family, or as part of a deputized posse or militia. As a soldier I may have to kill to accomplish my mission. A competent enemy may not give me a choice, and may be able to put me and mine at risk.

If a criminal is captured, held for trial, and convicted, he is under sufficient control so that he need not be killed. Perhaps the cell should be welded shut, and when he dies, it should be filled with concrete, but he need not ever get out.

I could see that one convicted, and held in jail, if he managed to kill another inmate, or a guard, that the death penalty would then be executed. If the bad guy is too smart for the state's minions to keep him secure, then by all means kill him. But the state's minions should be insulted at that demonstration of their incompetence.

A

Depending on the degree of the crime, I would go for death penalty. I don't see any advantage in letting a convicted murderer alive with a chance to escape or to kill another person (be it an inmate or a guard). He may repent afterwards, but the families whose relative was killed are the ones the society should feel sorry and concerned for.

Some people say the state shouldn't have such power over its citizens. Well, the state represents all its citizens and has many powers over us, such as taxing, arresting, providing health service, etc. It depends on what we're dealing with. Furthermore, the state has laws we all abide to and has sanctions for those who transgress them.

If the state has the power to imprision you for life, why is it shocking to have the power to kill you? I do find asking the victim's family (if there's any) whether they want him/her put to death, an interesting option as well.

All this being said, I think the best way is to prevent crime. We should concentrate on making our societies healthier and safer, and we should battle to minimize the sources of such crimes. It's always better to prevent than to punish. But sometimes, we do have to punish and set an example.